What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Excited Penguin]

People have biologically built-in compassion for each others, that's where morals come from. It's all about evolution. But now that we're all so smart we can dispose with impulses and find rational reasons to be kind towards one another.

[Joods]

Guess he wasn't up to the challenge. It's been three days now.

[Catholic_Lady]

Can't this thread please die already?? Brings back some bad memories lol...

[Randy Carson]

Incorrectomundo, gentlemen.

In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable. The fifth fact is accepted by a simple majority.

That's kinda the whole point. These are not facts with which you may take issue easily as they are most generally conceded as undisputed.

See ya there.

Popular opinion does not a fact make; that requires evidence.

I have provided an answer in post #523 in the Minimal Facts thread.

[Huggy Bear]

Guess he wasn't up to the challenge. It's been three days now.

I was going to leave it, but you just had to open your mouth...

In response to Stimbo's quote.

Good point. In order for a charge of slander or libel to be upheld, the statement in question has to be untrue.

And anyone who says "incorrectomundo" has to be immediately suspect.

Let's go back a few pages in this thread where I was accused of lying by Esquilax.

I have no interest in the rest of your self serving platitudes, however...

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions. You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site. We have rules against trolling, and your sig had been found to be in violation of those rules. You had your opportunity to argue your case at the time and you failed, you do not then get to misrepresent what happened later.

Interestingly enough, you said nobody had yet provided evidence of you lying, and then in the very next post you lied twice for personal gain; did you just think I'd forgotten that report? That we don't have it archived for posterity? All this was explained to you at the time, you know.

I in the first instance he states....

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions.

So I'm lying when I say my sig had been permanently disabled?
Then whats this?

It's a non-issue now, as we have permanently suspended Huggy's signature.

There's your proof of slander
As for the second instance

You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site.

It was Esquilax's position that I was misrepresenting Fatandfaithless

Quoting people is not the issue, as you were told then, and were told again now. The issue in the first case is you were using it to taunt another member after you both had been speedbumped, and in the second you misrepresented the content you were quoting; it was a simple mistake that had been retracted cheerfully once that had come to light, and you were representing it without that crucial end portion to make the person you were quoting seem unreasonable. That's both trolling and against our rules on quoting people accurately; how many times do you need to be told the same damn thing before it gets into your head? You were not warned for quoting someone in your sig.

*emphasis mine*
(the underlined portion I already proved false by providing evidence that I had actually created that sig BEFORE mod intervention.)
As for FAF's retraction, I posted the full exchange, If anything was misrepresented, it was the full measure of his ignorance.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

Like I said before, FAF makes an excuse as if he didn't understand the question, then insinuates IN THE PART I LEFT OUT that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method.....STILL WRONG!

FaF should of been glad I left that out....

Unless you can show where exactly FaF was misrepresented, that is proof of a second instance of slander.
We'll see if Esquilax acknowledges he was wrong....

What I find funny is, you can insult a "theist" to your hearts content... not considered trolling or flaming, but quote someone's embarrassing statement in your signature....THAT is trolling.

[bennyboy]

Huggy, even if you prove that all these allegations are false, and you are perfectly vindicated, what are you gaining here? How will any of this buttress the validity of your religious ideas or give glory to God? You are scratching in the gutter trying to win the wrong kind of fight, unless your goal is just to cut your teeth in the trenches-- which is not that rare a goal for forum debaters.

I think you've acted trolly sometimes, and so have some of the non X-tians here in this thread. That's what happens when etiquette fails and things devolve into a flame war. But you always have the choice-- bury the hatchet and attempt to kickstart the OP, or get trapped in the quicksand of an offended ego. The latter is basically an agreement to relieve Sisyhpus of his duties-- it's never going to take you to any positive place.

Let me ask you something: is it more important for you to be right, or to be righteous?

[Ravenshire]

Let me ask you something: is it more important for you to be right, or to be righteous?

Based upon his flaming, trolling, de-railing actions:
Huggies must be proven RIGHT!

[The Valkyrie]

[Huggy Bear]

Huggy, even if you prove that all these allegations are false, and you are perfectly vindicated, what are you gaining here?  How will any of this buttress the validity of your religious ideas or give glory to God?  You are scratching in the gutter trying to win the wrong kind of fight, unless your goal is just to cut your teeth in the trenches-- which is not that rare a goal for forum debaters.

I think you've acted trolly sometimes, and so have some of the non X-tians here in this thread.  That's what happens when etiquette fails and things devolve into a flame war.  But you always have the choice-- bury the hatchet and attempt to kickstart the OP, or get trapped in the quicksand of an offended ego.  The latter is basically an agreement to relieve Sisyhpus of his duties-- it's never going to take you to any positive place.

Let me ask you something: is it more important for you to be right, or to be righteous?

As a christian I am responsible to the truth, If I am accused of being a liar, then I am gong to address it because essentially I am being accused of bringing reproach to what I believe.

Besides, believe it or not, I am the polar opposite in "real life" to how people perceive me to be on these forums. I'm an introvert, I have no interest in arguing anything with anyone or proving anything to anyone.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Can't this thread please die already?? Brings back some bad memories lol...

Quite the bump you got there, Cathy ...